Huh. Did the same thing happen during the Harris Peterson interview? Seemed like maybe Harris was trying to have that discussion and Peterson would never accept the terms? Or maybe something else.
-
-
Replying to @derekvan @everytstudies
I haven’t heard, so I don’t know. I gather they got hung up on different ideas about what “truth” means, and instead of recognizing and discussing that, they both just insisted that their definition was right. In which case, yes, similar failure to address meta-rational issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I would say that Jordan tried to hide his supernaturalism from Sam with a half-baked notion of truth, and Sam fell for his usual failure to listen. We discussed this debate in the comments of: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/jordan-peterson-speaks-the-truth/#comment-105661 … I don't believe meta-rationality is a coherent concept, BTW.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Meta-rationality is figuring out what rational method(s) to apply in a particular situation, and how. Does that seem like an incoherent concept?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think rationality already fits that bill. If rationality is meta then meta-rationality is meta-meta-rationality, which looks absurd to me. The very idea of a conceptual scheme is problematic: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3129898 I believe what you're referring to is called meta-cognition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Metacognition is definitely a related category! It’s much broader, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It does encompass a variety of propositional attitudes. Now, what would be the propositional attitude meta-rationality is about: "rationalizing"? Searching around, I've found this, via
@johncarlosbaez: http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/deceive.pdf … I'm not convinced by their definition.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh, sorry! To be clear: I have a proprietary definition of “meta-rational,” a term that has few previous uses. My use is *roughly* similar to that of the few precursors, but not identical. This might be a good starting point (though not ideal):https://meaningness.com/metablog/bongard-meta-rationality …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @nevaudit and
There’s a detailed discussion of the meaning of the term in the forthcoming Eggplant book, but that is not yet out:https://meaningness.com/eggplant
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @derekvan and
Thanks for these. I'll take a look, but as I alluded to earlier, I don't buy the idea that we can think "outside the box." Best of luck.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’m not sure what you mean by “out of the box.” The section on the Church-Turing Thesis may be relevant? Here’s an excerpt:pic.twitter.com/53tlVjB8X2
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @derekvan and
By "thinking out of the box," I'm hinting at what you refer to as the "meta-systematic cognition" that "manipulates systems from the outside." The Gödel, Escher, Bach citation leads me to believe that you associate rationality to systematic rule following. I doubt it's the case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
[I’ll drop the others from this thread on the supposition that they may not be interested in detail]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.